Did anyone else read the New York Times article (July 3rd) by Carina Chocano in which she bemoaned the rise of women who are "tough, cold, terse, taciturn and prone to not saying goodbye when they hang up the phone"? In other words: strong female characters.
Cocano was speaking more about films than books, but I found her riff on the whole subject
fascinating and pertinent nonetheless. She made the point that when people use the term "strong female character," they aren't really describing characters that are complex or well-written, nor are they referencing heroines who figure prominently in a story. What is really meant by "strong female character," she argues, is a female character with the gendered behavior taken out.
I've thought about this with regard to my mystery series and its heroine Darby Farr. Now Darby's not what I would call a "girly girl." She's an expert at Aikido, she's a loner, and she doesn't espouse too many
qualities which we'd consider traditionally feminine (although she is a big believer in intuition.) When she acted a little impulsively at one point in the first book, A House to Die For, a reviewer gently chastised me for a "TSTL," or "too stupid to live" moment. You can bet I made sure Darby was a little more careful in Killer Listing, and she's downright precise in Deadly Offer, coming out in April. She is strong. She is invincible. She is Darby...
And yet, as Chocano argues in her article, isn't a little weakness "precisely what makes characters interesting, relatable, and funny"? If our strong female characters all act like Lisbeth Salander, aren't we contributing to the notion that for a female character to be worth identifying with, she can't be at all feminine?
On a personal level, I ask myself why it is that Darby can't make a few mistakes here and there? Might she shed a tear when she gets upset or hurt? And I'd like to see her make at least one close friend, for goodness sake, even if it's someone she meets in Aikido class.
I'll be the first to admit that I enjoy writing scenes in which Darby displays so-called "masculine" qualities. When she takes out a bad guy with an expert move, I feel nearly as proud as when my very beautiful daughter makes a killer kick in soccer. But Darby can have a softer side, too, and we may see it from time to time in future books. After all, she's evolving and growing.
Or would that be me?
7 comments:
What writers and readers have to remember is that this is fiction. Amateur sleuths have to be tough and smart, or there wouldn't be a story. They have to be human and vulnerable sometimes or there wouldn't be a connection. We can't please everyone and we shouldn't try.
A tough protagonist with no flaws or weaknesses is boring. Even Superman needs his kryptonite "allergy" for us to feel for him.
It's been years since I read and loved Victoria Holt, but all her heroines were impulsive, as I recall. Forever running off to investigate sounds in the night, etc. when they probably should have stayed put.
But otherwise, there would have been no plot, so I was fine with that.
Characters (male or female) can be tough without being angry and harsh. I see this characteristic being way over done on televison. To me it boils down to the inner strength of the character. Can she endure. Can she rebound from adversity. I have read stories where the female character was simply bitchy and whiny, and this, to me, is never appealing.
I remember Laura Lipman describing Tess in her first outing: she was new at being a PI, and she wasn't very good at it. I'd be disappointed if your protagonist didn't make a mistake every once in a while!
Very interesting post, Vicki!
Great post, Vicki. My #3 daughter says she always knows what movies/books I'll like -- it'll be the one with a smart female character. The characters can be impulsive or lachrymose, but please make them smart. Sneaky smart is best of all.
Enjoyed all of your comments, guys. Thanks! Hope you are all enjoying mid-August and not working TOO hard.
Post a Comment